Talk:Caleston
I don't think this should be deleted, instead, it should describe what was in the demo, conjecture and fact on what happened to it, and stay as part of the history of development and the Mass Effect universe. Caleston is featured in the X06 demo and in the tv-spot, so leave it there. Maybe they'll expand it with the next downloadabe content. Adding resource values to this page; I'm only adding up the values from the big spikes. Spellbound83 01:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC) Human colony I sort of understand the whole "___ Colony" categorization thing right now, but are we sure Caleston is a human colony? After all, it was founded in 1975, and I don't recall Gerald Ford or Leonid Brezhnev or any of those other big-wigs bragging about colonizing planets. SpartHawg948 19:59, March 1, 2010 (UTC) :So, basically, the founding of this colony demonstrates that it wasn't founded by humans. The presence of a facility owned/operated by a human corporation doesn't make it a human colony any more than the Guinness brewery in Nigeria makes Nigeria an Irish colony. And there is nothing in the entry on the planet to suggest that it has changed hands due to war, democratic elections, coup d'etat, or any other means. So I'm removing the human planet category. SpartHawg948 20:35, March 1, 2010 (UTC) Sapient Habitation So how can this place have a population of billions when sapient habitation isn't allowed? An oversight in rewriting the description? 14:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)l :Possibily, however the colonists could also live in domes, or somthing along those lines. Either way we can only guess, but it does bring up a good point. Lancer1289 16:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Or any number of other possible answers. For example, the planet was first colonized 210 years prior to ME2. The act preventing sentient habitation could have been passed after the world was settled but before the events of Mass Effect 2, in which case any pre-existing colonies on protected worlds (such as Caleston) would likely have been grandfathered. Additionally, there may be exemptions to the rule, allowing for limited settlement in support of the acquisition of strategically important materials. After all, Caleston is the biggest supplier of element zero in the Attican Traverse. This is actually a pretty common feature in environmental laws. For example, under the Endangered Species Act (which seems fairly analogous to the law in this situation), agencies and individuals (which includes companies, corporations, government branches, and regular folks) cam apply for a permit called a Habitat Conservation Plan which states that they will take steps elsewhere to offset 'incidental takes' (i.e. unintentional killing of listed endangered species) in pursuit of whatever activity the permit is for. Additionally, the ESA actually allows for the extinction of entire species, provided that it is approved by the government, and that there is good reason (such as strategically vital materials). I highly doubt it's an oversight in the description. It's not hard to string two paragraphs together without a major contradiction, and it just doesn't seem plausible that the author would, in the space of a few minutes, write 'Eldfell-Ashland Energy's mining operations have made it the largest source of starship drive core material in the Attican Traverse.' and then 'Sadly, sapient habitation is not possible here and Caleston's biodiversity is considered "threatened" by the Citadel Council Committee on Habitable Worlds.' out of ignorance, as opposed to a more reasonable explanation (like grandfathering or exemptions. SpartHawg948 20:44, June 25, 2010 (UTC) Very close How is Noveria so close to Caleston in the mass effect demo. Was Caleston supposed to be in the Pax system? 22:06, April 16, 2011 (UTC) :We don't know what scale the Galaxy Map in that demo was set to, so they could be far apart and the map just highlighted planets and they could be on opposite sides of the galaxy. Or maybe they were supposed to be closer together. Honestly, we just don't know. Lancer1289 22:12, April 16, 2011 (UTC) ::Probably because it's a '''commercial'. It's not intended to be canonical. After all, IIRC, doesn't Noveria get pretty much blown up in the commercial? Either Noveria does or Caleston does, and I believe it's the former. Nothing that happened in the commercial is canon, as none of it happens, or ''can happen in the game. Why should this one detail be any different? SpartHawg948 08:52, April 17, 2011 (UTC) :::Uh, how did I forget about that...I call this a duh moment. Lancer1289 17:48, April 17, 2011 (UTC) A conflict of info Caleston's orbital period and day length are given to be 21.5 days each in ME2 and 21.5 hrs each in ME3. So which one is correct?--SolitaryReaper (talk) 21:31, October 7, 2012 (UTC)